| 1 |
On Mon, 3 Mar 2014 12:40:59 -0500 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Honestly, there is no shortage of people offering their opinions. |
| 6 |
> What there is a shortage of is people actually doing work to make |
| 7 |
> (e)udev do anything differently. In the end people can complain as |
| 8 |
> much as they want, but unless they fork over effort or dollars or |
| 9 |
> something they won't get terribly far. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Work? What work? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I have never used udev/eudev/mdev or anything similar and, if I am allowed |
| 15 |
to nave a choice, I never will. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Manually creating a /dev tree that perfectly reflects ones own system |
| 18 |
is rather trivial. That's how Linux used to be and that's how Linux, |
| 19 |
for the most part, still is. There is, or at least should be, no need |
| 20 |
for udev or any substitute for udev. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
IOW, udev should be developed as a nice, helpful option for those who |
| 23 |
want such nice, helpful options. But it always should be just that: optional. |
| 24 |
Once it stops being a choice then we begin to deviate greatly from |
| 25 |
the once sacrosanct principles of free software. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Frank Peters |
Archives